- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:27:10 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen, Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:22:29 +0300: > On Jun 16, 2010, at 08:46, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Indeed. I think <a role=button> should be reported to accessibility > APIs as a button. > > This is tied to the stylability of <a>. If <a> can be styled to look > like a button, there should be a mechanism for reporting it as a > button via AT, too. > > Furthermore, if styling it as a button is not a machine-checkable > conformance error, reporting it to AT as a button should not be a > machine-checkable conformance error, either, because flagging the AT > side but not the visual side as conforming would likely more often > have a negative effect than have the positive effect of authors > replacing <a> with <button> or <input type=button>. The particular > negative effects I can foresee are either making the Web application > less accessible (by omitting role altogether) or making things more > complex by adding role via JS. > > On the other hand, I think > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9871 should be > WONTFIXed unless addEventListener is made not to have an effect on > <a>, but doing that would probably Break the Web. > > To cast the above as objections: I object to Hixie's no-change > proposal to ISSUE 85 and I object to fixing bugs 9871 and 9872. I am positive towards *this* kind of "objectionism" (though "I disagree" would have been just as good to say as "I object"). It doesn't feel like it is against your nature either ... It isn't a threat about something you're gonna do *if* ... It is a here and now that help me understand what your position is and thus helps me to understand and pay attention to the rest of the message. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 09:27:46 UTC